"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote:

I hate to say it, Jim, but this is one
of those intangibles that fall under
the catagory of "if you don't get it,
I can't explain it to you."

Kim's got it, but doesn't like it. I
can respect that. Bill's got it too,
but doesn't appear to want to let
on that he's got it. (Broken record
mode: But the FCC..., but the
FCC..., but the FCC...) Dwight?
No comment.


Bert: I just noticed this. I cannot believe you said that. I cannot
believe you are acting like that.

Why sure I said it…and I'm not even "acting." (As in pretending, get
it? That was a joke…a little levity.)

I *GET* that you like CW testing and you should *GET* that I don't.

I fine with that and stated as such. To clarify, you can substitute
"Kim's got it, (it being my opinion) but doesn't agree with it."

THAT is all there is to *GET*. It's that simple.

Not in my opinion. IMNSHO, folks are a tad too quick to remove the
character aspect from many daily activities, both professional and
personal. How many times have you heard "It's just business, nothing
personal" or "It's unfortunate, but it's the bottom line that
matters." Usually when you hear these words, it's in conjunction with
actions that are going to adversely affect somebody's life. I've seen
folks that have put in twenty plus loyal years of some seriously hard
work for a company and get released just so the bottom line showed a
ten percent profit margin as opposed to nine. (IOW, double instead of
single digit growth.) While there are many valid "business" reasons
that can be quoted to defend this, there are some moral or "character"
issues involved here. I know it wasn't always like this and at some
point in history loyalty was rewarded with loyalty at many companies.
That's a professional example.

At 5-wpm, I don't believe for one nanosecond that Element 1 is about
forcing people to become "proficient" in a mode, whether they plan on
using it OTA or not. Perhaps 13 or 20, but certainly not 5-wpm. The
FCC actually has some references to character, Jim, N2EY has provided
an example. I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

Furthermore, I think that many of the folks want to do away with the
character aspect solely to remove a valid argument against the removal
of Element 1. ("But the FCC…, but the FCC…, but the FCC…") Just like
the professional who don't want to feel bad about "making the
unpopular decision" or following "good business practice" while
legitimately shafting good employees. So now we have a whole
generation of young folks that are prepared to enter the workplace,
possibly "earn" their way into a position where they can do some harm,
but won't care because they were taught that it's ok to step on and
use others as long as it fits a prescribed business plan. What'll it
be like in another sixty or seventy years?

It ain't so simple, Kim…at least not to this observer. Character means
something…in all of life's aspect. A hobby and/or service called
Amateur Radio is just one of them.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
Enough said.

Agreed...por fin!

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and "more
often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


OK, I see...you're getting up early, too. ; ) ROFLMAO...

Kim W5TIT

I got up to go to work, had one foot out the door and...the machine
just called to me to check. ggg

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those
who really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is
making it something to work for.", or..

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part
97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate (authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that found
in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or requi mandated desegregation
of public schools.

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
.net...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote


You actually spend time recording it, huh?


Common practice when working weak signals in DXpedition mode. (Didn't you
often wonder why some DSP rigs have that little 'snippet catcher' in
them?)

73, de Hans, K0HB


Never seen anything but a YAESU 890AT, my husband's. Well, OK, I've "seen"
others but haven't "looked" at them...

Kim W5TIT

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

I understand Kim's point. Lets try
it from this perspective. If you're one
of the millions of immigrants entering
this country, the speech we use on
the radio, and on the radio tests, in
this country is not already in the
"toolbox." And Spanish certainly isn't
in the "toolbox" of many other Hams
in this country. So, even if you ignore
any skills needed for the voice modes
(however minor), there is still some
validity in Kim's argument. Spanish is
use more often the CW in this (snip)


Wow! See what happens when you edit a sentence without checking it
afterwards. That last sentence should read "Spanish is used" and
"more
often
than CW."


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

No sweat, Dwight. Only the very petty folks will nitpick about minor
spelling errors or grammatical misuses on USENET. (Usually in an
attempt to compensate for the invalidity of their own statements.)

73 de Bert
WA2SI


OK, I see...you're getting up early, too. ; ) ROFLMAO...

Kim W5TIT

I got up to go to work, had one foot out the door and...the machine
just called to me to check. ggg

73 de Bert
WA2SI


Yep. Been getting up at 4AM for so long that when I start regular work
hours again, it'll seem like vacation!

Kim W5TIT

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would
be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue.

Exactly.

So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

73 de Jim, N2EY


The liberals will whine and wring their hands in dismay, but
life's a bitch sometimes.